How can we know there's a God?

I don’t want to accept the Bible’s claim that God exists at face value. Is there any way I can prove God’s existence?

Answer:

We'll start with the obvious: If there existed a definitive, inarguable proof for the existence of God, there would be fewer atheists in the world.

That said, God's existence is something you can be sure about in your own life. Books like Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Toward God or Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution explore the stunningly intricate world in which we live, pointing out the statistical impossibility of the universe existing by chance or life evolving on its own. The perfect interaction between natural laws such as gravity and electromagnetic force suggests an Engineer with a flawless understanding of how to design an entire universe, and the continuous discoveries in all fields of science remind us that we have barely begun to scratch the surface of the complexities and mysteries of our world.

All this aside, belief in God eventually comes down to a matter of faith. You can study all the evidence in the world for God's existence, but clever minds will always be able to produce a tempting justification for doubting.

If you wish to be sure—absolutely sure—that there's a God, pray to Him. Ask Him to help you to see His fingerprints in your life and understand His plan for you. He makes a promise to those who diligently look for Him—a promise just as relevant today as it was when it was made thousands of years ago: "And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart. I will be found by you, says the Lord" (Jeremiah:29:13-14[13] And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.[14] And I will be found of you, saith the LORD: and I will turn away your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places whither I have driven you, saith the LORD; and I will bring you again into the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.).

There is a God. But the only way you can find absolute proof is to seek Him yourself.

There are some very simple statements of fact that can put this question to rest without long and intensive research. 1.It is a long stated fact that life can only come from pre-existing life. Further reading below. 2.The fulfillment of prophecy is also a certain proof that there is an all knowing God who sees the end from the beginning. and lastly 3.What has already been stated is that a personal relationship with someone is only possible if the two parties in the relationship exist and believe that they exist. This proof of God is the most amazing proof there is but can only convince the ones involved in it. I can tell you all about the skunk in the room but unless you believe it you are not really prompted to remove yourself from the impending danger. Once you have put the effort into discovering a relationship with the most powerful, most loving, most incredible person in the universe, well, you know, and you are certain you know, that God exists and cares for you very deeply.

Here are some comments from some people who are much more educated in these fields:

Brought to you with permission of Don Stewart, the Bible Explorer

Can Life Come From Non-Life?

Harvard scientist George Wald wrote:

Many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a philosophical necessity. It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing (George Wald, "The Origin of Life," Scientific American, August 1954, p. 46).

Life In A Test Tube?

All attempts to simulate the conditions of the early earth and create life in a test tube have failed. Most modern textbooks on biology point to the experiments of Stanley Miller in the 1950s as to how life originally formed in the primeval soup. Miller attempted to create life from non-life in a laboratory setting by duplicating the supposed atmosphere of the early earth. Out of his experiments certain molecules were produced that are important building blocks of life. Miller accomplished this by subjecting the atmosphere to electrical charges and then immediately trapping the molecules that were formed as a result of the reaction. He had to trap the molecules since those same electrical charges that formed them would disintegrate them with their next charges. Yet nature contains no such "trap." If these molecules were randomly produced by nature they would have been immediately destroyed.

Unstable Molecules

In addition, Millers experiments also produced biologically unusable molecules. In actuality Millers experiments complicated the problem for evolutionists. Did the so-called primeval atmosphere have both kinds of molecules? If this is true, then how did the life-building molecules disassociate themselves from other molecules long enough to combine and form the first living cell? If the atmosphere of the early earth were not the same as in Millers experiments, then what was it and why did it only produce life giving molecules? Millers experiments, far from proving how life originally arose on earth, raises more questions than answers. It must be emphasized that Miller never produced one living cell in his experiments. Phillip E. Johnson writes:

Geochemists now report that the atmosphere of the early earth was not of the strongly reducing nature required for the Miller-Urey apparatus to give the desired results. Even under ideal and probably unrealistic conditions, the experiments failed to produce some of the necessary chemical components of life. Perhaps the most discouraging criticism came from chemists, who have spoiled the prebiotic soup by showing that organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. In all probability, the prebiotic soup could never have existed, and without it there is no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of some amino acids by electrical charge in a reducing atmosphere had anything to do with the origin of life (Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991, p. 103).

Produced By Intelligence

If someday we do create life in a test tube it will not have been done by chance, but by a designer, an intelligent being. However, it will not tell us how life actually did originate. Any type of simulated experiment would only be one explanation among several on how life actually developed. Phillip E. Johnson notes:

Although these objections to the Miller-Urey results are important, for present purposes I prefer to disregard them as a distraction from the main point. Let us grant that, one way or another, all required chemical components were present on the early earth. That still leaves us at a dead end, because there is no reason to believe that life has a tendency to emerge when the right chemicals are sloshing about in a soup. Although some components of living systems can be duplicated with very advanced technology, scientists employing the full power of their intelligence cannot manufacture living organisms from amino acids, sugars, and the like. How then was the trick done before scientific intelligence was in existence? (Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, p. 103).

Theologian Bernard Ramm writes:

At our present state of knowledge two things may be stated. (i) Man has not produced life chemically. That he may produce protoplasmic specks . . . is a possibility, but the production of even the smallest organism is as yet a long time away. In view of our inability to produce life with our vast chemical knowledge and our ability to reproduce almost any condition we wish . . . we must still view a chance origin of life as a faith and not as a verified hypothesis. (ii) Unless a person is very anti-Christian it cannot be denied that the most satisfactory explanation to date is that life is the creation of the Living God. There is certainly nothing scientifically disrespectable in this connection, even though a person is not a believer. Those who do believe it, may do so without fear of contravening scientific fact and without prejudicing the character of their judgment . . . . Science is still unable to put forward any satisfactory explanation as to how life arose in the first place. We must either accept the Bible doctrine that God created life, or go on making improbable speculations (Bernard Ramm, The Christian View Of Science And Scripture, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1954, p. 183).

Can It Be Done?

Award-winning scientist, E.H. Andrews, explains the chain of events that must have happened if life originally developed by chance:

The early atmosphere had to contain some small molecules and not others.
Lightning or ultra-violet light had to be present to make them link together, but not to break them down again.

The new, larger molecules had to be washed down by rain. The molecules had to be below the clouds for this to happen, but the small ammonia molecules which dissolve very easily in water, were somehow not washed out of the sky. (This is hard to believe is it not?)

The larger molecules, though not very soluble in water, had to stay in the water as it filtered through the soil and ran over the rocks.

These molecules, though lighter than water, had to remain under the water. If they floated to the surface, they would have been destroyed by ultra-violet light.

The molecules had to collect and become concentrated in the organic soup so that they could be made to link together.

There had to be some very special catalyst molecules to make the inorganic molecules link up with water.

The right organic molecules had to be present in the right amounts to link up into proteins and DNA. Somehow, the special coded order of proteins and DNA had to happen. No convincing or even possible explanation for this has yet been given.

Organic droplets had to form and stay around long enough for something to happen inside them which would turn them into living cells. No one knows how something like this could happen.

Finally, of course, the first living cell had to find out how to divide before it died (single cell animals do not live very long lives, especially in strong solutions of ammonia which we use to kill germs today).

Here we have eleven steps, each of which had to be just right for life to survive. None of these steps separately is completely impossible, though we have no idea how one or two of them could have happened. But strung together to give an explanation of the origin of life they add up to a very unlikely story! (E. H. Andrews, From Nothing to Nature, Durham, England: Evangelical Press, 1978, pp. 41, 42).

It seems that some non-Christian scientists are beginning to admit the impossibility of life coming from non-life. Time magazine reports.

Presumably if you let simple molecules reshuffle themselves randomly for long enough, some complex ones would get formed, and further reshuffling would make them more complex, until you had something like DNA - a stable molecule that just happened to make copies of itself.

But more recent, more careful analysis suggests that even a mildly impressive living molecule is quite unlikely to form randomly. Then where did it come from? (Robert Wright, "Science, God, and Man," Time, December 28, 1992, p. 40).

Summary

Life does not come from non-life. This is a scientific fact. There is a big difference between a dead cell and a living one, or a dead body and a living person. If life ever were created in a test tube it would show intelligence is need to bring it about. Gary Parker writes:

Chemistry, then is not our ancestor, its our problem . . . Time and chance are no help to the evolutionist either, since time and chance can only act on inherent chemical properties. Trying to throw life on a roll of molecular dice is like trying to throw a 13 on a pair of gambling dice. It just wont work. The possibility is not there, so the probability is just plain zero (Gary Parker and Henry Morris, What is Creation Science?, Revised edition, El Cajon, Calif.: Master Books, p. 40).

The Bible says the earth did not start with a reducing atmosphere of hydrogen, methane, and ammonia which eventually developed into our present-day oxygen-rich atmosphere. Rather, it was created with sufficient oxygen to support plant and animal life. Furthermore, life did not evolve in water; it started on land when God created vegetation on the third day (Genesis 1:11,12). Life did not come from "non-life" but rather from the Giver of Life.

How can we know there's a god? Because there's really no other alternative logically. Whether atheist, agnostic, or religious ... makes no difference really as to the answer to this question.

All have to believe that we exist.

The alternative? That is if one doesn't believe in existence ... then he believes he doesn't exist ...and so neither does his opinion. And we don't have to worry about a non-existent opinion.

The non-religions have to believe that the universe exists and is not a creation. Because to believe otherwise (to believe it is a creation) logically requires a creator. And that would be god.
So the non-religious have to believe that the universe is not a creation ... is self- existent, has life inherent, has prodigious mind, and creates marvelous and miraculous things. so ... they believe the universe is god ... its axiomatic! This is the basis of all pagan religion.

So whether one believes in the Creator God of the bible or not ... the question ... How can we know there's a god? ... really isn't a question at all because from every rational human perspective everyone knows there's a god. The only valid argument in that case is ... which god is god?

Now if the intention was to ask ... How do we know that there is a creator God who created the universe? Then that's another question. That requires that it be proved that the universe is a creation. Because if that's established ... then logically a creation requires a Creator. And that creator would be god.

Now if instead the question is ... How do we know the God of the bible is that creator god? Then that's but another different question.

So the important thing here is to truly understand what question one truly wants to ask. Because that there is a god is axiomatic. The human mind isn't capable of conceiving of anything else without resorting to non-existence ... and that's just absurd on its face (as shown above).

So how can we know if the God of the bible is that creator God? The answer actually is ... "Because we're smart that way". That actually is a valid answer ... if in fact our answer is correct.

The actual problem here is that the human mind is the wrong tool for determining that issue. You'd stand a better chance of teaching your cat calculus.

The real question actually is - how can we really "know" anything? Consider:
In order to "break the ice" in mathematics classes I've taught in the past, and to try and put the class at ease, I would often start the first class off by asking the class if they knew why mathematics was called an "exact science"? So I'd explained that when we begin a study of mathematics the first thing we do is state certain axioms and initial definitions. That's the starting point - and everything that follows will be based on these axioms and the initial definitions. I then ask them - What is an axiom? And then I explain that an axiom is actually a statement or idea that is taken to be true without proof. Its just assumed to be true. And I point that the initial definitions necessarily must be defined using terms that are undefined. Where it is just glibly assumed that we all have a perfect understanding of what these undefined terms mean. And then I ask them if they see now why mathematics is called an "exact science"? And then Id say .. obviously its because mathematics is based on statements taken to be true without proof and on undefined terms.
And while that's all kind of humorous ... its actually true. Everything we think we know is based on assumptions (one way or another). The starting point is always an assumption. So how can we know there is a supernatural creator God? Well based on the above we can't really "know" either way. Our brain is obviously the wrong tool for that job.

But if we take the laws of thermo as fact and assume that the energy of the universe isn't infinite (but is instead finite ... and so constitutes a finite set of possibilities) ... then it follows that there had to be a time in the not infinitely remote past when time began. And before that point there was no time. And since true science doesn't allow perpetual motion ... this couldn't be an infinitely cyclical event either. That points to a creation event ... and a creation logically implies a creator. And that's the best I can do.
Eccl. 8:17 "Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea farther; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it."
Simply put .... brains just aren't enough. At least not man's brain.

Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited. All correspondence
and questions should be sent to info@ucg.org.
Send inquiries regarding the operation of this Web site to webmaster@ucg.org.